Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Stanley Ozoroski v. Frederick Maue, 3rd Cir. (2012)
Stanley Ozoroski v. Frederick Maue, 3rd Cir. (2012)
STANLEY N. OZOROSKI,
Appellant
v.
DR. FREDERICK R. MAUE,
Chief of Clinical Services, Individually and in his official capacity;
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.;
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, Individually and in its official capacity;
DR. ADAM A. EDELMAN, Individually and in his official capacity;
MARVA CERULLO, Health Care Administrator SCI Mahanoy, individually;
CECILIA VALASQUEZ, Director of Guadenzia DRC;
GAUDENZIA-DRC, All Defendants Jointly and Severally Liable;
CHERYL CANTEY,Head Medical Supervisor of Gaudenzia DRC
________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 1-08-cv-00082)
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
_______
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 12, 2011
Before: SLOVITER, VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
and STENGEL,* District Judge
Hon. Lawrence F. Stengel, United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. We exercise plenary review of the District
Courts grant of summary judgment, and we apply the same standard applicable in the
District Court found in Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. See Doe v. C.A.R.S. Prot. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d
358, 362 (3d Cir. 2008).
2
Further, the Doctrine does not extend to Ozoroskis claims against Dr. Maue or
Cerullo because their alleged conduct was not connected to any continuing practice but
instead amounted to isolated incidents. In fact, Dr. Maues involvement in Ozoroskis
treatment was limited to two letters dated November 10, 2003 and October 20, 2004,
which stated that it was his medical opinion and that of other physicians that surgery was
not in Ozoroskis best interests. As the District Court appropriately reasoned, [t]he two
letters amount to little more than discrete, isolated events not appropriately linked to
some larger scheme to deny Ozoroskis medical care. App. at 10. Ozoroskis claims
against Cerullo rest on an equally isolated event her refusal to permit an application for
pre-release to be filed on Ozoroskis behalf. Furthermore, since Ozoroski filed a
grievance in connection with Cerullos refusal to file his pre-release application on
November 9, 2004, we find that her conduct was sufficiently permanent to trigger
[Ozoroskis] awareness of and duty to assert his . . . rights during the limitations period.
Cowell, 263 F.3d at 292. Nevertheless, he did not bring suit until more than three years
after Cerullo and Dr. Maues alleged conduct. Therefore, his claims against Cerullo and
Dr. Maue are also barred as untimely.
Ozoroski also argues that the District Court erred by granting summary judgment
on his Eighth Amendment claims in favor of Prison Health Services, Inc. (PHS),
another healthcare provider contracted to provide healthcare services to DOC inmates;
Dr. Adam Edelman, director of PHS; Cecilia Velasquez, director of Gaudenzia; and
Cheryl Cantey, head medical supervisor of Gaudenzia.
With regard to his claims against Wexford, Appellant also submitted copies of
Wexfords website pages, which discuss Wexfords goal of providing cost-effective
healthcare to its clients. Although we decide Appellants claims against Wexford on
statute of limitations grounds, we note that Appellants evidence also fails to establish
that Wexford maintained a policy or custom that caused the deprivation of Appellants
constitutional rights.
fail to create a material question as to whether PHS maintained a policy or custom that
caused the deprivation of Ozoroskis constitutional rights.7
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Courts entry of summary
judgment in all respects.